Fee facts Your article Timed out paints an inaccurate and misleading picture of how legal aid fixed fees will affect practitioners and their clients. Fixed fees are designed to increase access to justice - not reduce it. No money is being taken out of the legal aid budget. Our focus is on the quality of services, achieving the best value for money and rebalancing the overall budget to provide more funding for civil work. The fees do not limit the number of hours a lawyer or adviser can spend on their clients' case. Rather, it discourages spending unnecessary time on cases, freeing up time and money to help more clients. In addition, your article states the wrong fixed fee for asylum advice. The true payment rate is nearly double the figure given. Furthermore, expenses such as translation costs are paid for separately. The fees represent the average cost of all cases in a single category of law over a year. They are not set at the lowest possible level nor do they encourage practitioners to take on only the cheapest cases. Indeed, any provider found to be "cherry picking" easy cases would be acting unlawfully and risk losing their contract. Cases that are particularly complex will continue to be paid on hourly rates. Our data shows that more practitioners will gain than lose under the new system. The real picture is one of a fair price for handling a diverse range of cases; a system where the cost of complex cases is balanced by the cost of simpler and cheaper ones and one that encourages practitioners to commit to helping as many people as possible. Carolyn Regan, chief executive, Legal Services Commission

· Tracy Cook paints a sickening picture of the devastating effects of the legal aid cuts being forced on law centres and the few solicitors still serving the most vulnerable people. Had it been a question of medical, rather than legal, care there would be a public outcry if doctors and hospitals were told to cut short lengthy and complicated procedures for want of funding. The analogy is apt. Why, as I advocated in the 1990s before retiring, instead of relying on private practice supplemented by ever penny-pinching legal aid, cannot we have a properly funded salaried national legal service, which would incorporate the law centres, undertaking work for the disadvantaged? This would reduce the need for an elaborate bureaucracy and practitioners grovelling for extra funding on a case-by-case basis. We are one of the wealthiest societies and the failure of successive governments to provide proper access to justice for so many is a shameful blot which a progressive administration ought to remedy.Benedict Birnberg, London

· Tracy Cook's article raises some very serious questions about disabled people's access to justice and legal services. Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to live in low-income households and can therefore be disproportionately reliant on the sort of free legal advice and support that law centres can offer. Changes which could mean such essential services are no longer available for those who need them most could result in many disabled people being denied fair access to the justice system. The charity for disabled people, Leonard Cheshire, is concerned that proposed changes to the legal aid system could penalise the very people that legal aid and law centres are designed to help. Given the grave concerns expressed by law centres, and others, about the potential impact on their disabled clients, we urge the government to look again at this critical issue. Guy Parckar, public policy manager, Leonard Cheshire

How many Olivias? This is one of the saddest stories I've ever read (Living in a nowhere land) but unfortunately I suspect there are many other 'Olivias' around. Mental health services are well intentioned but often they do treat people differently according to their education level, class or some other superficial indicator of 'normalness'. There's a tendency for healthcare professionals to view people 'like them' as being less seriously mentally ill than those whose appearance, language or behaviour is different. Well done to Patricia Owen and Sarah Boseley for bringing Olivia's story to light. Name and address supplied

· I read your article and I think "There but for the grace of God go I". To cut a long story short, I became 'ill' with symptoms of anxiety and I lost my job. My GP referred me to a psychiatrist who prescribed medication for panic disorder. I began to recover, though I put it down to rest and time away from work more than the medication. Then, after the medical insurance failed to pay out, I suffered a relapse. My GP then referred me to a clinical psychologist who pronounced me as "of sound mind, different, enthusiastic and interesting". Definitely a behaviour disorder in Britain today. I ended up with a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder and a prescription for Olanzapine, a sedative anti-psychotic. I refused to take it, despite tremendous pressure from the social worker. Apart from that, he was a pretty decent bloke. He found me a room in a hostel for those with mental heath needs, where I have been living for the past year and a half. I was lucky. I could have ended up like 'Eleanor Rigby'. I wonder how many others have. The fact is that to be eccentric or different in appearance or thinking is now very, dangerous in this country. You will be targeted by bullies. I have learned, too, that to be classed as mentally ill in Britain today, is the equivalent of leprosy. Anthony Gibson

· What misguided person thought Olivia could possibly be happy in one of the most economically and socially deprived areas of Liverpool. I speak as a Liverpudlian now living in London. The contrast between Maida Vale and Kensington could not be greater. Given Olivia's instability, 10 minutes' research might have enabled that person to gently dissuade Olivia from such a disastrous idea. Such a very sad story. Valerie Ford, by email

Lacking logic I agree with Saba Salman (The 'new race logic' won't help integration that implementing the Commission on Integration and Cohesion (CIC) proposal for a presumption against single-group funding will certainly have an adverse impact on the black and minority ethnic (BME) third sector. Such a call also doesn't recognise the specific needs of the UK's diverse communities and that its implementation is likely to have a negative effect on community cohesion. Governmental and other reviews have shown that BME organisations have. for a long time, addressed cohesion issues and contributed in promoting civic engagement in Britain. The CIC report doesn't provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that ethnic, religious or cultural identity works against community cohesion or integration. In addition, implementation of the CIC's single-group funding recommendations will place unfair additional burdens on smaller and BME led organisations who already don't get their fair share of public funding and strive to deliver services to communities where statutory and mainstream services have failed. The government recognises this by providing funding for the regional BME Networks and Voice4Change England, a new coalition speaking for the interests of the BME third sector at local, regional, and national levels. In the experience of our partner organizations, there is no need for the development of guidance on the appropriateness of single-group funding and we have written to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to say that this recommendation should be rejected. Rather, Voice4Change England is ready to work with the DCLG and relevant agencies to explore the possibilities of developing guidance that focuses on cohesion and community integration along with improving the lives of people living in the most disadvantaged communities.Vandna Gohil, director, Voice4Change England

· To suggest that the Commission on Integration and Cohesion report is promoting a "new race logic" is quite wrong. The report is clear that deprivation and discrimination are the two primary factors affecting integration and cohesion. What the commission's analysis shows, though, is that some poor communities can have very strong levels of cohesion as a result of significant 'resilience factors' - not least voluntary groups and community centres. Far from the blame for segregation being laid at the door of voluntary groups, the report argues for much higher levels of community activity. The presumption against single-group funding is guarded. Where there is a clear reason for capacity building within a particular group or community, funding can, of course, be awarded. In fact, the report goes much further, arguing that national and local government should take a more strategic approach to promoting and funding community capacity-building. It is a shame we cannot unite behind the vision of a better funded and supported third sector but instead let issues such as single-group funding fuel the identity politics of years gone by.Ed Cox, director of policy and public affairs, Local Government Information Unit

Carbon angst Craggers, people who are into personal carbon reduction activity, are described as 'radical pretty hair-shirt' . Actually they sound like middle-class guilt angst activists to me. Of course, every individual needs to be aware of their impact on the environment and look at modifying it where necessary. But that won't stop climate change or save the planet. For that, organised political pressure on governments is required and that is something everyone can get involved in.Keith Flett, London

Net gains The rise of networking websites for social good reflects people's search for more meaningful ways to engage online (Networking for the 'we' generation). But charities should not neglect the potential of mainstream commercial websites to deliver social benefits. At MissionFish, we are working with eBay to enable more than 20 million people in the UK to support their favourite causes by buying and selling items for charity. So far, 2,000 charities have registered. We hope the programme will become a major source of new funds for good causes.>br> Nick Aldridge, CEO, MissionFish UK

Getting by An extremely interesting and useful article (Can-do councillor) but I am somewhat astonished at the comment: "His ability to get by on the £45,000 salary". I would love to 'get by' on £45,000 salary as would many in the real world I, and many of your readers, inhabit where the cost of the Guardian has to be tightly budgeted for. Probably would not have been so cross if it hadn't been in the Society section!Sue Gill, by email

Direct action The extension of direct payments championed by Martin Knapp (We must win hearts on direct payments) would be a retrograde step for UK social policy. It will only lead to a proliferation of fragmented, low quality and often unsafe provision for highly vulnerable citizens. If ever a service needed to be nationally provided and nationally funded it is social care. The notion that diverse needs requires diverse provision needs to be challenged. An imaginative well-funded national care service delivered by a highly trained, well-paid 'Bevanite' social care workforce remains the way ahead.Robert Page, reader in democratic socialism and social policy, Institute of Applied Social Studies, The University of Birmingham

· Perhaps Professor Knapp's opening sentence says it all. Will "personalisation" be just another entrancing buzzword that follows the buzzwords of "normalisation" and "inclusion" that had so many good intentions but have abysmally failed to fulfil their original expectations for families of people with learning disabilities? As a proposal to give disadvantaged people independence and options of choice, the concept is commendable and could offer wonderful opportunities for the people for whom it is appropriate to offer this form of service. As a one-size- fits- all alternative that will enable the government to evade the responsibility for providing structured and specialist services, it could prove to be a traumatic and tragic disaster that heralds the total demise of the supportive and caring social policy that care in the community was intended to provide. It would have been conducive to winning hearts and minds if the government had ensured before implementing the Valuing People policy that it had taken account of the complexity of the problems that it was set up to address. Instead, we have had have Valuing People policy based on good intentions, unrealistic expectations, and false premises and myths. The potential outcome was obvious - Valuing People has "stalled". The consequences for service users and their carers is becoming painfully obvious as the application of the fundamentally flawed policy descends into shambles, leaving the most severely and disadvantaged people destabilised and depressed with the alternatives that are being offered, including direct payments, as day centres are increasingly phased out. It will not be easy to win the hearts and minds of a section of the population who have consistently seen their needs valued at the lowest level of priority and who have suffered repeated disappointments and increasing pressure from the failure of central and local governments to learn from their past mistakes. These people would perhaps receive greater reassurance if the closures of all establishments and the reduction in support services arising from the redefinition of eligibility criteria were to be put on hold until a truly rational, achievable, comprehensive, and sustainable policy has been identified. In the meantime, a lifetime of low expectations and disappointments with the quality of service that has resulted from continually mismanaged policy implementations, can only lead potential beneficiaries of this latest panacea to meeting all needs to cynically speculate from whence an immense and unlimited flow of finance is suddenly to become available to provide them with choice, independence, and peace of mind.Charles Henley, Bournemouth